I found that pretty strange, especially, Playing the Game.
If you don't 'trust' Watson, at what point do you start in your study of the Canon.
That is not to say Watson, intentionally or unintentionally never made errors or mistakes.
But to not trust him, to me, almost makes Playing the Game pointless.
Because at that point you really can't believe anything in the Canon is a reliable place to start.
Not trusting Watson means; Can you really believe he was in Afghanistan and wounded while there?
You have to have somewhere to start, and for me, that is Watsons word.
So much is already questioned in the Canon for probability, possibility and reliability, but we have to hold somethings a true to have a point of reference.
One way I like to look at the Canon of Sherlock Holmes is kind of like looking at the stories written by James Herriot. The Yorkshire Vet how wrote the wonderful tales of his treating animals in Yorkshire from the late 30's through the 70's.
While we know names and places were changed in the books, and some dramatic license was taken to make the tales more readable, we know that the tales were based on his experiences.
We also know Watson changed names and dates and places to protect individuals within the cases.
We know that even Holmes thought his good friend often embellished the cases a little more than Holmes would have liked. But perhaps he had to do that to make it more readable for the masses.
But enough research has been done to show, also, how accurate much of Watsons writing really was.
Watson is known as the stalwart companion of the pair. And stalwart means reliable and loyal, and I would add the word trustworthy to his personality.
What do you think; Was Watson worth our trust?
No comments:
Post a Comment